Greenwald referred to this article on his blog this morning, but I thought the original was such a clear statement I bring it to your attention. From Rami Khouri in Lebanon’s Daily Star, "Why Chuckles Greeted Hillary’s Gulf Tour," responding to the American claim that the Arab Gulf states want Israel as a protector against a nuclear Iran. My emphasis.
This sounds reasonable, but it is not an accurate description of the actual options that the Arab Gulf states have. It is mostly a description of how American and Israeli strategic concerns and slightly hysterical biases are projected onto the Gulf states’ worldviews. These states in fact have a fourth option, which is to negotiate seriously a modus vivendi with Iran that removes the “threat” from their perceptions of Iran by affirming the core rights and strategic needs of both sides, thus removing mutual threat perceptions.
This is exactly the same option the US used when it negotiated détente and the Helsinki Accords with the Soviet Union (and whose results ultimately brought about the collapse of Communism). Why the US does not use the same sensible approach to the perceived threat from Iran is hard to explain. Perhaps two reasons explain it: Washington would have to deal with Iran (and other defiant Middle Easterners) through negotiations rather than haughty neo-colonialism; and, Israel would have to submit to nuclear inspections and end its aggressive behavior.
Weiss adds: Note the reference to the collapse of Communism. The analogy is clear. Very few of us in the west are fond of radical Islam. I don’t like it one bit. How can I have any effect on radical Islam? Return to Wolman’s emphasized Rx.
